Confession caused by inducement, threat, coercion or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding
Section 22 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with confession caused by inducement, threat, coercion or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding. A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat, coercion or promise having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat, coercion or promise having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him:
Provided that if the confession is made after the impression caused by any such inducement, threat, coercion or promise has, in the opinion of the Court, been fully removed, it is relevant:
Provided further that if such a confession is otherwise relevant, it does not become irrelevant merely because it was made under a promise of secrecy, or in consequence of a deception practised on the accused person for the purpose of obtaining it, or when he was drunk, or because it was made in answer to questions which he need not have answered, whatever may have been the form of those questions, or because he was not warned that he was not bound to make such confession, and that evidence of it might be given against him.
Section 22, The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act 47 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Evidence Act
IEA 24 Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding Text carried over almost unchanged 89%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Aloke Nath Dutta v. State of West Bengal
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 24, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-3.pdf 2006-12-12 (not same-date order-4 ROP). Crl A 2005. Extra-judicial and retracted confessions are weak; IEA 24 keeps out a confession caused by inducement, threat or promise from a person in authority. A conviction cannot rest on an unreliable extra-judicial confession without corroboration. Map iea 24 and successor bsa 22.
On this section: Successor of IEA 24 (mapping.csv near-identical). Induced-confession irrelevance carries to BSA 22.
-
Tofan Singh vs The State of Tamil Nadu through the Ineliigence Officer
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 24, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Officers designated under Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are 'police officers' within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Consequently, any confessional statement made to such officers is barred from being used as evidence under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Additionally, a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act, as Section 67 is limited to calling for information and examining persons during an inquiry antecedent to investigation, not for recording confessions as substantive evidence.
On this section: Confessions caused by inducement, threat or promise are irrelevant in criminal proceedings
-
Sahadevan vs State of T. Nadu
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 24, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of circumstantial evidence relying heavily on extra-judicial confession: (1) Extra-judicial confession is weak evidence requiring examination with great care and caution; (2) It must be voluntary, truthful, inspire confidence, and be corroborated by other prosecution evidence free from material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities; (3) Theory of last seen together cannot form sole basis of conviction without establishing small time gap between being last seen alive and found dead making other perpetrators impossible; (4) When prosecution evidence itself disproves core motive and material facts stated in extra-judicial confession through its own witnesses, the confession loses credibility and becomes unsafe foundation for conviction; (5) Where entire prosecution case suffers from material contradictions, contradictions between witness statements, crucial evidence is unreliable and chain of circumstances is incomplete, courts must acquit accused as prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
On this section: Voluntariness of confession - Court examined whether extra-judicial confession was voluntary or result of inducement/threat/promise
-
State of Punjab vs Harjagdev Singh
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 24, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A judicial confession recorded under Section 164 CrPC by a competent Magistrate following the prescribed procedure—including warning the accused that the confession may be used as evidence and satisfying the Magistrate that it is voluntary—is admissible and reliable evidence of guilt even if there are technical non-compliances with procedural requirements under Section 164, unless the accused demonstrates that such non-compliance caused him actual injury in his defence on merits. An extra-judicial confession may also be admissible if the witness supports the substance of the confession even if the accused later claims the witness had no opportunity to hear it. The voluntariness of a confession is determined by objective assessment of facts and circumstances, including whether the confession was made in fit state of mind and whether any inducement from person in authority with reference to the charge created reasonable grounds for the accused to suppose he would gain advantage or avoid temporal evil by confessing.
On this section: Governs admissibility of confessions made under inducement threat or promise. Court analyzed whether extra-judicial confession was caused by inducement from person in authority. Detailed exposition of law on what makes confession involuntary.
-
Vinod Solanki vs Union of India
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 24, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In quasi-criminal proceedings under FERA, a confession retracted before a Magistrate on the first available opportunity cannot form the sole basis for imposing penalty. The authority seeking to act on such a retracted confession must first apply its mind to the retraction, consider the circumstances in which it was made, reject it in writing with cogent reasons, and ensure that the inculpatory statement is substantially corroborated by independent and cogent evidence. The burden of proving that the confession was obtained voluntarily and free from threat, coercion, or inducement lies on the Department, not on the proceedee, and Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act applies to FERA proceedings as they are quasi-criminal in nature. A mere retraction, without more, may not render a confession inadmissible, but the court and authorities are obligated to examine both the confession and retraction together and cannot ignore or conveniently bypass the retraction in the guise of applying burden on the accused.
On this section: Core provision cited throughout the judgment regarding admissibility of confessions obtained through inducement, threat, or promise by person in authority; Court held that this section applies to FERA enforcement proceedings despite them being quasi-criminal rather than fully criminal in nature
-
Mohmed Amin @ Amin C. R. M. Shaikh vs C. B. I Tr. Its Director
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 24, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When confessions are recorded by police officers of Superintendent of Police rank or above in accordance with Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and Rule 15 of the TADA Rules, 1987, such confessions are substantive evidence admissible against the maker as well as co-accused, abettors, or conspirators charged and tried in the same case. Even if an accused is acquitted of charges under the TADA Act, such confessions can be used for convicting him for offences under the Indian Penal Code or other enactments, provided the accused was tried jointly with TADA offences. The voluntary nature of confessions depends on the Court being satisfied that the requirements of Section 15 and Rule 15 were complied with, and when challenged by the accused, the initial burden is on the prosecution to prove such compliance. Once the prosecution discharges this burden, the burden shifts to the accused to prove through evidence that the confession was not made voluntarily or was not truthful. Confessions do not require independent corroboration for conviction of the maker, though as a matter of prudence, courts may seek general corroboration for use against co-accused unless satisfied of the confession's probative value. Mere retraction of confession is not sufficient to reject it; the crucial question is whether the accused was subjected to coercion, threat, or undue influence at the time of confession-making. Guidelines laid down in earlier judgments like Kartar Singh, while advisable, are not mandatory legal requirements unless incorporated into the statutory Act or Rules.
On this section: Noted but excluded from application to TADA confessions due to non-obstante clause; discussed in context of voluntariness requirement
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 22
What have the courts held on Section 22 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
Aloke Nath Dutta v. State of West Bengal (12 Dec 2006) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IEA 24, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of IEA 24 (mapping.csv near-identical). Induced-confession irrelevance carries to BSA 22. Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2006 to 2020.
How do I find court cases under Section 22 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BSA 22, section 22 BSA, section 22 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. People searching for it also type bsa 22 inch cycle. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 6 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Aloke Nath Dutta v. State of West Bengal (12 Dec 2006).
What should I read with Section 22 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IEA 24 (Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 22 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam come into force?
Section 22 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, cited as BSA 22, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 26. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1128 words
- 12. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body or bodily feeling1076 words
- 95. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement815 words
- 2. Definitions794 words
- 6. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 63. Admissibility of electronic records764 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.